|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm pretty sure it would be a curse for most people.
Sometimes the bug IS the feature, but only in the right circumstances. The helm of opposite alignment prisoner reformation program, the cursed sword is great if you need to have a fight in a secure area, there's a thousand uses for a bag of devouring etc.
I really don't get this. Mind you, I don't get people in general, especially trends that rely almost exclusively on something as ephemeral as terminology for a litmus test, but shouldn't that item be wish fulfillment for some people at least?
This isn't a bad thing. Its a very common if not ubiquitous element in fantasy role playing games and fantasy in general: the desire to be something you're not or do something you can't do, a mighty warrior, a suave spy, to turn the power of your brain into real, physical power through the arcane arts. I mean if people want to change their bodies badly enough to have a very expensive procedure done doesn't that mean there's a legitimate desire for this item to exist?
Is the offensive part that it exists or that its a cursed item? To me is the difference between druid shapeshifting and baleful polymorph. One you turn on, one gets turned on you. One persons life long goal is usually someone elses curse.
I think the short answer is if you're hit with these you're not stealthing anywhere.
1) Glitterdust & Invisibility - My reading of this says that you still get the +20/40 from invisibility, but then you take a -40 to stealth.
This part makes me think you're not gaining anything from invisibility anymore.
visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell.
If you have a visible outline I don't think you're all that invisible anymore.
2) Faerie Fire & Invisibility - I read this as it cancels invisibility and adds a -20. So the character above would be at a straight 0 on his stealth. This seems like the worst spell for a stealth character to be hit with.
Druids get a LOT of anti stealth abilities.
3) Faerie Fire, Darkness, HIPS, Hellcats Stealth - So obviously, faerie fire and darkness is a no go on stealth. I believe it also cancels out HIPS. But it should still work with hellcat's stealth, albeit at a -20.
From farie fire: A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles.
In a dark room I don't see how you could hide with a light source, much less if you are the light source.
In a lit room you'd be at a -30: 20 from the farie fire and 10 from the hellcat stealth. Farie fire also gets rid of blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. The "similar effects" could include whatever mechanism it is that hellcat stealth uses, because hellcats use the light to make themselves blurry.
4) See invisibility while stealthing & invisible - I have had a few GM's rule this against my thinking, but my belief is see invisible doesn't see you if a) you can stealth normally in the situation your in (such as HIPS in darkness) and B) your stealth score (not including invisibility) beats their perception. This could also go for invisibility purge.
I think you'd be ok hiding from the see invisibility spell but i can see the other wording.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
A question for you BNW, how do yo feel about the humane as possible removal of non native species that have no value beyond that of pets.
Conflicted, but against.
While I'm well aware of the massive amount of harm endangered species can do, I think the cat is out of the bag (literally). Getting Australia ecology back to a pre colonial condition would require such a massive and expensive effort to not only do, but to maintain, that it would never happen. How are you going to get rid of EVERY cat, red fox, (rat?) and rabbit on the entire continent? As soon as you leave any behind you're only setting the stage for the problem to crop up again. As soon as a pair sneak in somehow you're back to where you started.
I for example support a ban on the sale of cats in Australia and the neutering of all existing cats and the destruction of any feral cats.
I'm fine with the first two , not with the third. Harming individuals in pursuit of an unattainable, broader goal doesn't sit well with me. In another 50 or 100 years or we'll probably have a better technological solution for sterilizing unwanted pets. You can do damage control until then.
Of course, once cloning becomes an option, I'm going to get myself unfrozen just so i can see the maori eagles take to the skies over Australia's pre schools, along with all the other megafauna we wiped out. You thought the DINGOES were bad...
Speciest!... nationalist!.... nationalspeciest ?
From summon monster
Creatures on Table 10–1 marked with an “*” are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an “*” always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.
Q: If I use summon minor monster, and select ravens, can they have the Shadow template, under RAW?
A) No, you can't just randomly template things you summon without a feat, class feature, or other weird ability.
Follow up Q: If the answer is no, what summoning spell do I have to use to summon a raven (or multiple ravens) with the Shadow template?
A) Not a clue.
Q the third: Which templates can actually be applied to creatures summoned using Summon Minor Monster, under RAW?
Fiendish or celestial.
Beware the fiendish candiru... most feared monster in the dungeon.
Q.1: How do i get more spells into my spellbook during down time?
1) As per The FAQ you can
1) Borrow a book from another player and comp. shop.
Q.2: If i buy Scrolls of ??? can i then copy those spells into my
You can but Library fees are way cheaper.
Q.3: I know i should know where this information is but where will i find the rules for learning/scribing new spells and the cost of those spells.
Just stick around we'll make you feel smart!
If thats your take away from the conversation you should see why I don't trust your comprehension of a news article from 20 years ago. You have trouble not inventing reality around a conversation you're IN, much less one you remember.
Greenpeace's claims (or rather what you say greenpeace was claiming, I can't find the video) make sense because
1) They are not an unbiased source of information. Nor do i expect them to be one. They are an advocacy group. I fully expect them to take the absolute worst that exists and exaggerate it to make a point or shock people. Making things up out of whole cloth however is as pointless as it is unnecessary.
2) wiki and any number of other sources confirm roo count kills at around the 2 million mark annually. This takes place via many disparate, private groups that number at least in the hundreds, and out of that there are bound to be more than a few morons gleefully cutting into things. I've met more than a few people that give hunters a bad name and I doubt its strictly an american phenomenon. There seems to be no reason to fake this.
3) Kangaroos do not have a breeding season, they get preggers, put the pregnancy on hold till the joey is out of the pouch, start it and get pregnant again. They're six foot tall tribbles. Unlike deer, where you can avoid starving the fawns to death by not killing the mother in the spring. If you're going to kill 2 million kangaroos then you either have one heck of an animal adoption center going on or a whole range of fetuses/babies with low chances of independently living.
4) You cannot articulate a coherent motive for greenpeace to torture animals to make a point. They're not making money off of it, so unless its just one sick joke for the evulz you have nothing. They gain influence... influence to do WHAT exactly?
5) You cannot cite any sources for greenpeace having done what you claim. The mere existence of the film and accusations yellow journalism do NOT create your very specific points.
6) You pick up right wing conspiracies theories as fact. You have a hard time with fact A being fact A and not facts B C D and E. You swallowed climategate propaganda whole, and this looks to be along the same lines. There was something that was less than absolute 100% perfect (knowing these kinds of films far from it) and therefore its an evil conspiracy.
And we're back to the gnome underwear.
Green peace gains influence.
Greenpeace's malevolent plan is to use that influence to.... ? I mean are you even giving them noble motives in the end here or do they just get a kick out of seeing people wear cow instead of kangaroo? You don't just gain influence to roll around on it.
And if you mean the newspapers have a vested interest in this... but for some unimaginable reason, Greenpeace itself doesn't... I can't help you.
By all appearances, what happened was that greenpeace saw a film that was staunchly against the kangaroo harvest, bought it and distributed it. By the very familiar process media sensationalism and(usually) underestimating the public, this becomes "Greenpeacce slaughters kangaroos!" ... which is the same thing that happened when they suggested switching from cattle to roo.
But what it doesn't let you do is ignore the rules for actually using rake
I understand you perfectly. I still disagree with you.
YES, it does let you ignore the rules for using rake, even the way you read it. Even the way you read it you have to ignore the section on rake that says A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing.
Nor is a news blurb, which has a vested interest in sensationalizing something, the best source of information.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.
They're doing it wrong then. Their highest paid employee makes less money than my school district superintendent. (The information is on the tabbed section at the bottom)
I remember seeing it vividly.
I'm not denying its existance.
I also remember that there was talk in the news after that it was a false flag operation.
Which wouldn't surprise me, given the state of the news industry. For example, Greenpeace had a few suggestions for Australia for switching from cattle to the native roos as a source of meat for a number of reasons, including greenhouse gasses, environmental degradation, and the problems of fencing. The stories read Greenpeace advocates kangaroo slaughter!
It may be that I am wrong on this, but honestly, your rundown is just excuses to preserve your own world view that Greenpeace is Good - i.e. the corresponding thing you accuse me of.
How. The. Hell. Is option 1.5, which is Greenpeace slaughtered animals to get donations an excuse to preserve my own world view that Greenpeace is good?
The rest of them is you defending horrible, cynical people willing to torture animals for gains of influence. Blech.
I have been a vegetarian for 20 years. I was in the peace corps. I volunteered at a wolf center. I routinely climbed into garbage dumpsters to fish out raccoons. I once spent 20 minutes swimming through a freezing cold lake to get an injured goose. I've stood bodily in between four numbskulls with a shovel and a flying squirrel and a lot of angry people throwing things at a blacksnake just trying to soak up some rays.
Before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or defending people that I would gladly play Gallagher with you need to realize that your say so is not gospel to me. Like everyone else you are just someone else on the internet. Some random stranger's view that there was a false flag operation based on some news reports you heard 20 years ago are not gospel to me which is why I need to ask what you're talking about so I can look into it.
4.5 is saying Greenpeace's story is true. Ditto.
No, it does not. This is not as black and white as you apparently need it to be. Based on the information I can find it looks like greenpeace either hired a film maker or (more likely) found an existing film that that fit their anti kangaroo product ad campaign. Neither possibility makes anything in the film true or false.
I can't find anything that would even indicate if the allegations would be true if applied to the film maker.
If you are going to accuse people of torturing animals for gains of influence you need to back it up and your evidence is WOEFULLY lacking.
I mean what exactly is the evil plan here? Lie----> collect influence-----> ????? -----? Profit?
Well, take a look yourself.
You cannot simply assume that everyone but you that doesn't agree with you is an ignoramus. You cannot simply assume that everyone has the same information that you do, or even believes the same information you do. I can make any claim i want about any one i want and then just hand wave a "look at it for yourself, you'll see that Obama really is a muslim atheist weak willed dicatator lizardman! " It doesn't help when the "proof" is...
"Greenpeace and WWF are doing VERY well for themselves these days. "
Yes. Holy cow. Surprise! Environmentalism is freaking expensive. Oddly enough when you ask starving people to pretty please not shoot the elephants for that very expensive ivory that they're made out of it tends not to work. On the other hand when you start a multipronged approach with community outreach, technical expertise to control animal behavior, agricultural expertise so they have more food, buying more land for the elephants, paying for game wardens and giving them Humvees with very expensive guns poaching tends to go down.
Now for the kangaroo thing, now that you finally mention something specific, I don't know if its a complete fabrication, a lie, or a half truth. A lot of that gets thrown around the internet, especially at the granola set.
A few possibilities.
1) Kangaroos were not actually being slaughtered and Greenpeace made the whole thing up for donations.
1.5) Greenpeace staged a slaughter and exaggerated the living heck out of it.
2) The lie about Greenpeace is the thing thats made up whole cloth.
3) Green peace snuck a volunteer into a hunt and oddly enough, had to pay for the guide services to do so.
3.5) Green peace paid for 1 hunt and said "just pretend the camera's not there" in order to try to stop the other hunts.
4) Green peace found a film maker, cut him a check , got the documentary/propoganda without knowing the details.
4.5) Green peace found an existing film, said "hey thats just what we needed" bought it and distributed it.
From an anti green peace bit in the new american (surprise)Linky
Greenpeace acquired and distributed a film showing Australian farmers mutilating live kangaroos. The film, entitled Goodbye to Joey, was also made available in Europe and the United States. Using this tool, Greenpeace launched a determined campaign to ban kangaroo products in Europe; the organization even asserted that kangaroos were becoming endangered as a species, although every Australian is painfully aware how much of a pest the overabundant kangaroos are.
This (and a few suspiciously similarly worded entries)are the only reference I can find on the film, but even this less than neutral source seems to suggest that the film was merely BOUGHT by green peace, not made by them.
You're the only one seeing it there.
So pounce needs to specifically negate that hyphenated line to allow the rake on the charge.
It does so. Very specifically.
2. Velociraptor Show me where it says this animal has pounce? And even if it did, it doesn't have rake either.
Size Small; Speed 60 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d6), bite (1d4); Ability Scores Str 11, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 14; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.
Size Medium; AC +2 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d8), bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4) Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2; Special Attacks pounce.
Speed 60 ft.
Exactly. Do that. Now note that rake says
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
The way you insist on reading it pounce doesn't negate the need to start the turn in a grapple either, meaning you can never rake on a pounce.
And Zhayne, I do agree that pounce lets you rake on a charge, but I believe that you need to be grappling to use them. Just like the rule clearly states.
Consider the following
1) The pounce ability specifically says you can rake on a charge and does not specify "if the grapple attack is successful"
2) The velociraptor deinochus dinosaur has pounce but no grab.
3) Rake specifies that the animal has to start the turn with the creature in a grapple to start the rake attacks (which if its not getting the rake from the pounce doesn't make any sense becaue it can't start the turn grappling and then charge)
I can't see any ambiguity at all here.
I don't know if Qadira has an official fiend/tiefling policy. The reaction is probably a little torch and pitchforky, and some of the saranrae clerics are "redeem it" and some of them are a little "kill it with fire!" (the latter obviously did not do so well on their knowldge: planes)
You start with 2 traits unless you get the extra traits feat. This is in the Pathfinder society organized play section of the boards, so I'll assume thats how you want the question answered.
You can have any trait that is legal, and that you have a source for.
The Fox wrote:
Also, her short bow should be +4. Same problem, I'm guessing.
I believe she's taking the attack penalty on the bow because its hard for her to pull back
Oft over looked section under strength wrote:
A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
This could be eliminated after the first adventure or two by buying a composite bow.
My parents insisted that I take swimming lessons until I passed the "Intermediate" exam, leading to perhaps 12 years of swimming lessons and the ability to swim 2-3 miles nonstop through a body of water, or swim across a pool with a 70-pound child on my back. (You'd be amazed how hard that actually is.)
Damn, what the hell do they make you do for the advanced class?
I worked at a very busy pool. ~20 times per weekend the rescue log would read "jumped off diving board, couldn't swim, jumped off diving board, couldn't swim". Had to send the lifeguards a memmo about the importance of natural selection in human evolution...
Had one incident where the kid jumped off diving board, couldn't swim. Lifeguard jumps in to save kid. Parent jumps in to save kid.. couldn't swim, grabbed onto lifeguard... who couldn't come up with two people on her. Had to grab onto a pipe and haul the three up in one go.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Yes, but you can't threaten with a bomber for very long. Its either sitting in an air port, flying overhead, or its actually violated airspace in which case you're declaring war. With ships you can have them casually bobbing off the coast pointing guns in.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
The port is also useful for trading, and they need a navy to threaten some of their other neighbors.
Which is actually pretty correct as far is average russian knows from history lessons.But Kiev Rus was long ago,Russian Empire-not so long ago and Soviet Union was practically yesterday.During which Ukraine was a subject.
During which time they committed genocide on the ukranians through planned starvation. Thats a pretty good reason NOT to go back to being under Russian rule.
Seth Gipson wrote:
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.
I think the campaign is and has to be a little loser on the paladins than a home campaign would be, since the player can't work with the DM and other players in advance to fit in. You can't use a restriction on the player to either stay home or not play their character to limit the power of paladins, it just ruins everyone's fun.
Park ranger at a pool. Amounted to being a bouncer/janitor. Doing first aid on the hernia for the guy trying to pick me up to throw into the pool was hilarious.
Wolf masseuse: Intern at a wolf center, which consisted of making sure the wolves stayed in the center, giving tours, fixing the place and extended time giving bellyrubs to the wolf that was on his own and more than a little down after losing his brother.
bat catcher: caught bats in whats essentially a bunch of big volleyball nets. ID em, weigh em , measure them and let them go.
You can't just photo copy it from a book. Print out refers only to watermark PDFs that have your name on them.
If you borrow your friends book its legal because there's no way of knowing its borrowed, and fulfills the primary purpose of showing the DM what the feat/item/whatever does.
Cash goes for gear. You get a more or less set amount per adventure.
Room and board is covered for the character.
You don't need to UMD your own wand. You buy a wand, when you get hurt you hand it to the cleric/bard/druid and say "three hits please!" Healing a rotating batch of newbs that don't bring their own healing gets expensive after a while, because it comes completely out of your own pocket otherwise. (my druid keeps the 4 wands he's burned down to 3 charges or so spread out in different places accross himself and his animal companion)
You buy stuff from the society. The good news is that you can get what you want with few restrictions. If you want a shocking bursting holy ripsaw glaive you can probably get one by the time you have the gold for it. The downside is you can't get custom items. The efficient quiver is fine because is a standard magic item, but you can't order say, a cloak of elven resistance that combines the cloak of resistance and elven kind.
Item crafting is banned: its simply too easy with the infinite down time between sessions for characters to take craft wondrous item and effectively double their number of magic items.